Apes and humans have different designs

mindlight · Mar 20, 2013

Loudmouth said:
But why a nested hierarchy? From a design standpoint, a nested hierarchy makes absolutely no sense. No human designer has his designs fall into a nested hierarchy. Even when humans design organisms they regularly violate the nested hierarchy?
So why a nested hierarchy? Why did God limit himself to a pattern of divergence and homology that evolution would produce?

What you call nested hierarchy is actually only similarities in design between groups of species. They do not prove development from shared common ancestors. You make this extra step speculatively. You have foisted a theory on to evidence that Christians can accept without accepting your interpretation of significance.

That's fine. This only demonstrates that a low mutation rate can produce the differences we see between species.

Those mutations have been observed. They are the mutations that separate humans and chimps.

I must have missed this experiment where an ape like ancestor was transformed into a human being by controlled mutational steps in a defined and peer reviewed experiment. You have the genome of a Chimp, you have the genome of a human. You have occasional examples of mutations in certain genes. But you do not have a proven pathway between a common ancestor and a modern chimp or human being. We agree on the facts but differ on your value laden understandings of them.

Tomk80 · Mar 20, 2013

mindlight said:
What you call nested hierarchy is actually only similarities in design between groups of species. They do not prove development from shared common ancestors. You make this extra step speculatively. You have foisted a theory on to evidence that Christians can accept without accepting your interpretation of significance.

A nested hierarchy is much more than just "similarities in design between groups of species". As Loudmouth already explained in his post, there is no reason similarities of design would follow a nested hierarchy.

Look at cars. They all have lots of similarities in design. Do they fall in a nested hierarchy? No. Even if you look at subgroups of cars, like only looking at sedans, or only looking at specific brands, the nested hierarchy is violated. There is only one process known on earth which produces a nested hierarchy, and that is descent.

mindlight · Mar 20, 2013

Tomk80 said:
This is in no way a response to the post of Loudmouth. Could you actually engage his argument please? Thanks!

Loudmouth said:
It is no more speculative than evolution producing base differences. We have observed that humans are born with indel mutations, so we already know that nature produces these mutations, so why exclude them from the analysis?

Mindlight said:
We are all configured differently. Observed Micro-evolutionary changes do not prove theorised macro-level ones. The evolutionary theory is interfering with a proper analysis of the facts here by providing reasons to do things that distract from the task at hand and thereby distorting the results.

I have already answered this but to spell it out:

1) X and N areas were excluded from this experiment because the computer programme used is not proven reliable in examining them, because they are relatively speaking areas of low complexity with less significance for the overall analysis that the more significant base DNA for instance. They distort the numbers with nonsignificant similiarities.

2) Micro-evolutionary changes mainly only prove the ability of an organism to adapt to change in environment and therefore the flexibility of the Creators design in the individual configurations that distinguish one person from another and in response to environmental challenges. There is no proof here of type to type evolution or the required evidence trail of the pathway taken from a supposed common ancestor to the modern state. Insertions and subtractions from nucleic acid or protein sequences if proven show only this readiness to adapt and ability to interact with the base design in a flexible way in a changing world.

3) Point mutations of the kind alluded to in evolutionary theory are actually quite dangerous and can result in cancer, sickle-cell anemia, neurofibromatosis etc when they go wrong. These problems demonstrate the flawed assumption that evolution is a proven thing because macro changes seem more likely to kill the organism than grow it

mindlight · Mar 20, 2013

Tomk80 said:
A nested hierarchy is much more than just "similarities in design between groups of species". As Loudmouth already explained in his post, there is no reason similarities of design would follow a nested hierarchy.

He has explained the theory not demonstrated it. And regarding how a common designer is expected to behave or organise his creation- says Who!

Look at cars. They all have lots of similarities in design. Do they fall in a nested hierarchy? No. Even if you look at subgroups of cars, like only looking at sedans, or only looking at specific brands, the nested hierarchy is violated. There is only one process known on earth which produces a nested hierarchy, and that is descent.

But it is equally possible that a Creator could have used a similar genetic base material as an early phase of a rapid creation process and with a technique of accelerated DNA replication and controlled mutation produced each species that we see today according to their type. The bible suggests animals and birds and fish were created first and then man on the 6th day. It is perfectly possible that in continuity with the principles already established in his earlier creations and with the environment in which he had created biological life God then produced a man that was both genetically more advanced (yet in continuity) with his earlier designs. Add to that the breath of God and the transcendence of having being made in the very image of God that distingushes man and you have alternate explanation as to how man arose.

In Nature DNA replication with mutation is problematic and while it can be associated with environmental adaptation , more often it is associated with regression and sickness. The difference between a Creator and Nature is that God never makes mistakes and works much faster.

Loudmouth · Mar 20, 2013

mindlight said:
What you call nested hierarchy is actually only similarities in design between groups of species.

Why would designed organisms fall into a nested hierarchy? Designed automobiles do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Human designed organisms regularly violate a nested hierarchy.

They do not prove development from shared common ancestors.

Why not?

You have foisted a theory on to evidence that Christians can accept without accepting your interpretation of significance.

How have I foisted a theory onto the evidence? We OBSERVE that evolutionary mechanisms produce nested hierarchies. It is the only pattern of shared and derived features that evolution can produce (for species who only participate in vertical inheritance). If you disagree, can you please explain why evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy?

I must have missed this experiment where an ape like ancestor was transformed into a human being by controlled mutational steps in a defined and peer reviewed experiment.

Nature has already done the experiment. By looking at the human and chimp genome we can see a direct record of that experiment.

You have the genome of a Chimp, you have the genome of a human. You have occasional examples of mutations in certain genes. But you do not have a proven pathway between a common ancestor and a modern chimp or human being.

Why not? All you seem to have is denial.

We agree on the facts . . .

No, we don't.

Loudmouth · Mar 20, 2013

mindlight said:
We are all configured differently. Observed Micro-evolutionary changes do not prove theorised macro-level ones.

Why not?

The evolutionary theory is interfering with a proper analysis of the facts here by providing reasons to do things that distract from the task at hand and thereby distorting the results.

How is it interfering, distracting, and distorting?

Loudmouth · Mar 20, 2013

mindlight said:
No for a number of reasons:

1) BLASTNs reliability on gapped analyses is not proven

It is as proven as an ungapped analysis. This is no reason to leave out an entire category of mutations from the analysis.

2) These areas are excluded cause they are actually areas of low complexity e.g. Ns- Nucleic acid sequences and X's -protein sequences ,that are most often and uncontroversially very similar. So their inclusion distracts from the task of identifying more significant DNA differences.

That is false. Tomkins is using the ungapped analysis in high quality, non-repetitive sections of the genome. He is using the ungapped analysis in areas where there are no N's or X's. As I have explained at length, excluding very real single base indels results in a lower identity score than there should be. Here is my explanation from a previous post:

Why is this important? Let's take a look. Here are two made up sequences that are separated by a single indel (*=match):

seq A: ATATTGCGAT-ATTCGTA
.......**********.*******
seq B: ATATTGCGATGATTCGTA

Using a gapped analysis you would find that they are the same at 17 out of 18 bases. If I did an ungapped analysis that ignores indels, what would the comparison return? Let's take a look:

seq A: ATATTGCGATATTCGTA
.......**********..*
seq B: ATATTGCGATGATTCGTA

There are no N's or X's in that sequence. It is high quality sequence. By excluding a single base indel from the analysis you get a much lower score than would be reported with the correct gapped analysis. Do you understand why this is?

Loudmouth · Mar 20, 2013

mindlight said:
He has explained the theory not demonstrated it. And regarding how a common designer is expected to behave or organise his creation- says Who!

Why would a Creator limit himself to a pattern of shared and derived features that evolution would produce? Humans do not limit themselves in such a way when they design organisms, or anything for that matter.

But it is equally possible that a Creator could have used a similar genetic base material as an early phase of a rapid creation process and with a technique of accelerated DNA replication and controlled mutation produced each species that we see today according to their type.

Each time you try to make the process of creation look like evolution you are admitting that the evidence is consistent with evolution.

Why would the process of creation look exactly like the product of evolution? That seems to be a serious problem for your idea.

The bible suggests animals and birds and fish were created first and then man on the 6th day. It is perfectly possible that in continuity with the principles already established in his earlier creations and with the environment in which he had created biological life God then produced a man that was both genetically more advanced (yet in continuity) with his earlier designs. Add to that the breath of God and the transcendence of having being made in the very image of God that distingushes man and you have alternate explanation as to how man arose.

It is also perfectly possible that God would create so that there is no nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason why we would expect to see designed organisms fall into a nested hierarchy. None. You have not given a reason. No creationist has given a reason. The ONLY reason we would expect to see a nested hierarchy is if evolution is true.

Is God not capable of creating a bird with mammary glands? Is God not capable of creating a bat with feathers? Is God not capable of creating a vertebrate fish with a forward facing retina? Is God not capable of creating a mammal with flow through lungs? It just makes no sense.

In Nature DNA replication with mutation is problematic and while it can be associated with environmental adaptation , more often it is associated with regression and sickness. The difference between a Creator and Nature is that God never makes mistakes and works much faster.

And yet we have millions of mutations that separate us from chimps and they are responsible for the wonderful adaptations that make us humans.

Tomk80 · Mar 20, 2013

mindlight said:
He has explained the theory not demonstrated it. And regarding how a common designer is expected to behave or organise his creation- says Who!

We know how designers work. They are not bound by rules of heredity that produce a nested hierarchy.

But it is equally possible that a Creator could have used a similar genetic base material as an early phase of a rapid creation process and with a technique of accelerated DNA replication and controlled mutation produced each species that we see today according to their type.

What you are suggesting here is some kind of hyper-evolution? Otherwise, there is no reason we would see a nested hierarchy.

The bible suggests animals and birds and fish were created first and then man on the 6th day. It is perfectly possible that in continuity with the principles already established in his earlier creations and with the environment in which he had created biological life God then produced a man that was both genetically more advanced (yet in continuity) with his earlier designs. Add to that the breath of God and the transcendence of having being made in the very image of God that distingushes man and you have alternate explanation as to how man arose.

No, you don't. All you have given here is gobbledegook that doesn't explain anything. There is no reason why "principles already established in earlier creations" would give a nested hierarchy, unless those principles were passed through the same hereditary lineage. Otherwise, we would see a violation of the nested hierarchy. And if that is what you are proposing, you are basically just proposing some sort of hyperrapid evolution.

But if you do that, why do humans again fit in that nested hierarchy?

To be honest, it seems like you have no clue whatsoever about what a nested hierarchy is in the first place. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy is a relatively good primer on it. Perhaps you should read that first?

In Nature DNA replication with mutation is problematic and while it can be associated with environmental adaptation , more often it is associated with regression and sickness. The difference between a Creator and Nature is that God never makes mistakes and works much faster.

And yet we observe DNA replication with mutation giving rise to new organisms. The point being, of course, that those organisms with regression and sickness do not reproduce.

mindlight · Mar 20, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Why would a Creator limit himself to a pattern of shared and derived features that evolution would produce? Humans do not limit themselves in such a way when they design organisms, or anything for that matter.

Each time you try to make the process of creation look like evolution you are admitting that the evidence is consistent with evolution.

Why would the process of creation look exactly like the product of evolution? That seems to be a serious problem for your idea.

It is also perfectly possible that God would create so that there is no nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason why we would expect to see designed organisms fall into a nested hierarchy. None. You have not given a reason. No creationist has given a reason. The ONLY reason we would expect to see a nested hierarchy is if evolution is true.

DNA replication is true, mutation is true and the difference between the various types of animal, bird and fish is true. It's not a question of God creating in a way to make things look like evolution. It is a question of God creating in a certain way and in a holistic manner that matches his creatures with the creation he prepares for them and then evolutionists trying to explain that in purely naturalistic terms. You are basically saying that a particular group of animals share a similar design pattern. You trace a link between a common ancestor and each creature in this group based on these similarities and what you theorise must have been the path of development that led to them. To do that you postulate billions of years of evolution and a trial and error process of naturalistic adaptation to environmental changes a millions of mutations (some were good and some catastrophic). But equally using the same but vastly accelerated DNA replication and a carefully controlled methodology of mutations and operating in the space of only a day a supreme Being or even advanced aliens (to postulate a more attractive theory among atheists) could have produced the same effect. I am not therefore saying the evidence matches what evolutionists are saying. I am saying that the evolutionists have missed the point of what the evidence is saying because of their commitment to a naturalistic process of evolution that by necessity must be slow and inefficient and include a great many blind alleys and extinction events.

Is God not capable of creating a bird with mammary glands? Is God not capable of creating a bat with feathers? Is God not capable of creating a vertebrate fish with a forward facing retina? Is God not capable of creating a mammal with flow through lungs? It just makes no sense.

Of course He is capable but He chose not as far as I see. God created creatures of the air and the land and the water according to their type. Which incidentally is what we find in the natural record.

And yet we have millions of mutations that separate us from chimps and they are responsible for the wonderful adaptations that make us humans.

All of which could have occurred in a matter of 24 hours with the same Designer that created chimps earlier in the Creation process then applying himself to create a man in continuity with the principles of life on earth which he had already laid down in the 5 day period before. There is no way to disprove this from merely suggesting evidence of Descent and nested hierarchies as I do not have to oppose the factual record of these patterns to argue my point even if I can be sceptical as to how far the case has been made. Indeed all we are arguing about here is how fast this process could occur. I am saying that in the hands of THE only real expert on DNA there has ever been it could happen in a day and you are saying that it occurred naturally over billions of years. The evidence does not disprove the existence of an Intelligent Designer it affirms it and gives clues on methodologies he might have employed in a vastly accelerated manner that none of us can ever hope to duplicate.

My own personal view is that macro -evolutionary theory is actually a reaction to a certain form of super spiritual Christianity that had so far removed itself from nature and the animal kingdom that it had become falsely ascetic. Evolutions power came from pointing out the truth that we do have strong connections with nature and the animal world and that to a considerable extent we are made out of the same stuff as they are. The science does not actually have to set Evolutionists and Christians in opposition at all nor is it necessary just to blindly accept the scientists timescales as in the case of Theistic Evolutionists. As Christians begin to understand the value of nature (our responsibility to be stewards and not just to control it) and the value and beauty of the animal world this power of opposition loses its legitimacy and we find we are actually closer in our thinking than we previously thought. The study of DNA is one area in which Macro-Evolution can be quickly overthrown because it is really irrelevant and indeed distracting from the description , understanding and use of our understanding regarding the human genome for practical healing or life enhancing purposes. Also because it essentially reduces human beings dignity and status beneath what it actually is. Ontological reductionism is an insult to our maker as we are much more than what a scientist can observe about us.

Loudmouth · Mar 20, 2013

mindlight said:
DNA replication is true, mutation is true and the difference between the various types of animal, bird and fish is true. It's not a question of God creating in a way to make things look like evolution.

Yes, it is. A nested hierarchy looks like evolution. That is the only pattern of shared and derived features that evolution can produce. No designer is limited to such a pattern.

If you disagree, then please explain how evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy amongst species that do not participate in horizontal inheritance like most metazoans.

It is a question of God creating in a certain way and in a holistic manner that matches his creatures with the creation he prepares for them and then evolutionists trying to explain that in purely naturalistic terms.

Why would this holistic manner produce a nested hierarchy?

You are basically saying that a particular group of animals share a similar design pattern. You trace a link between a common ancestor and each creature in this group based on these similarities and what you theorise must have been the path of development that led to them.

You have it backwards. I observe evolution in action. I observe that evolution produces a nested hierarchy. I then create a hypothesis. If species share a common ancestor and changed through time as a result of these observed evolutionary mechanisms then I should see a nested hierarchy. If evolution did not occur then I should see numerous and clear violations of a nested hierarchy. This is a testable, scientific hypothesis. I then look to see if species, both extinct and extant, fall into a nested hierarchy. This is not an assumption. This is not me forcing a theory onto the facts. Rather, this is TESTING a theory with the facts, and that theory passes that test.

To do that you postulate billions of years of evolution and a trial and error process of naturalistic adaptation to environmental changes a millions of mutations (some were good and some catastrophic). But equally using the same but vastly accelerated DNA replication and a carefully controlled methodology of mutations and operating in the space of only a day a supreme Being or even advanced aliens (to postulate a more attractive theory among atheists) could have produced the same effect.

A supreme being could have also mixed and matched different design units so that they do not fall into a nested hierarchy just as humans do. No supreme being would be limited to a nested hierarchy, so there is no expectation that one would see a nested hierarchy if creationism is true. You would only expect this pattern if evolution were true.

I am not therefore saying the evidence matches what evolutionists are saying.

Then how does it not match? What would the pattern of similarity be if evolution really were true?

I am saying that the evolutionists have missed the point of what the evidence is saying because of their commitment to a naturalistic process of evolution that by necessity must be slow and inefficient and include a great many blind alleys and extinction events.

Yes, just like you do for every theory in science that you accept such as the theory of atoms, the germ theory of disease, theory of relativity, etc. Every single theory that you currently accept was developed in the same way that evolution was. Why should evolution be any different?

Also, where have you shown that these supernatural mechanisms even exist? Where have you shown them in action? Where have you constructed experiments to test for them? All you have done so far is say that if creationism is true then it will look exactly like life evolved. That doesn't make any sense.

Of course He is capable but He chose not as far as I see. God created creatures of the air and the land and the water according to their type. Which incidentally is what we find in the natural record.

So why isn't there a creature of the air with feathers and mammary glands? Why isn't there a creature of the air with fur and flow through lungs? Why do you ONLY see the mixture of features that evolution predicts we should see? Why would a creator meticulously put features together in a way that exactly mimics evolution? That makes no sense whatsoever.

All of which could have occurred in a matter of 24 hours with the same Designer that created chimps earlier in the Creation process then applying himself to create a man in continuity with the principles of life on earth which he had already laid down in the 5 day period before.

Why would a continuity of life require a nested hierarchy? You STILL haven't explained this.

There is no way to disprove this from merely suggesting evidence of Descent and nested hierarchies as I do not have to oppose the factual record of these patterns to argue my point even if I can be sceptical as to how far the case has been made.

You are shifting the burden of proof. In a court of law, I don't have to disprove leprechauns planting fingerprints at the scene of a crime in order to use fingerprints as evidence. So why would I have to disprove the magical poofing of animals into a pattern of shared characteristics consistent with completely natural processes?

Indeed all we are arguing about here is how fast this process could occur.

The difference is I am using evidence. You are making it up.

I am saying that in the hands of THE only real expert on DNA there has ever been it could happen in a day and you are saying that it occurred naturally over billions of years.

You have never given us any evidence that any such expert did anything.

The evidence does not disprove the existence of an Intelligent Designer it affirms it and gives clues on methodologies he might have employed in a vastly accelerated manner that none of us can ever hope to duplicate.

How does it affirm it?

My own personal view is that macro -evolutionary theory is actually a reaction to a certain form of super spiritual Christianity that had so far removed itself from nature and the animal kingdom that it had become falsely ascetic.

Then you really don't understand the evidence found in the field of biology. Biology is inexplicable without evolution. You can't tie facts together in biology without evolution. It just isn't possible. Why does no animal have feathers and mammary glands? Why does yeast and humans have a different protein sequence for cytochrome C when the two genes are interchangeable between the two species? This is just a tiny piece of the tip of the iceberg. Creationism does not explain the facts of biology. Period.

The study of DNA is one area in which Macro-Evolution can be quickly overthrown because it is really irrelevant and indeed distracting from the description , understanding and use of our understanding regarding the human genome for practical healing or life enhancing purposes. Also because it essentially reduces human beings dignity and status beneath what it actually is. Ontological reductionism is an insult to our maker as we are much more than what a scientist can observe about us.

All I see you doing is saying that you don't like the conclusions that science has reached, so we should just ignore them. That doesn't seem very productive.

FrenchyBearpaw · Mar 20, 2013

mindlight said:
DNA replication is true, mutation is true and the difference between the various types of animal, bird and fish is true. It's not a question of God creating in a way to make things look like evolution. It is a question of God creating in a certain way and in a holistic manner that matches his creatures with the creation he prepares for them and then evolutionists trying to explain that in purely naturalistic terms. You are basically saying that a particular group of animals share a similar design pattern. You trace a link between a common ancestor and each creature in this group based on these similarities and what you theorise must have been the path of development that led to them. To do that you postulate billions of years of evolution and a trial and error process of naturalistic adaptation to environmental changes a millions of mutations (some were good and some catastrophic). But equally using the same but vastly accelerated DNA replication and a carefully controlled methodology of mutations and operating in the space of only a day a supreme Being or even advanced aliens (to postulate a more attractive theory among atheists) could have produced the same effect. I am not therefore saying the evidence matches what evolutionists are saying. I am saying that the evolutionists have missed the point of what the evidence is saying because of their commitment to a naturalistic process of evolution that by necessity must be slow and inefficient and include a great many blind alleys and extinction events.

Of course He is capable but He chose not as far as I see. God created creatures of the air and the land and the water according to their type. Which incidentally is what we find in the natural record.

All of which could have occurred in a matter of 24 hours with the same Designer that created chimps earlier in the Creation process then applying himself to create a man in continuity with the principles of life on earth which he had already laid down in the 5 day period before. There is no way to disprove this from merely suggesting evidence of Descent and nested hierarchies as I do not have to oppose the factual record of these patterns to argue my point even if I can be sceptical as to how far the case has been made. Indeed all we are arguing about here is how fast this process could occur. I am saying that in the hands of THE only real expert on DNA there has ever been it could happen in a day and you are saying that it occurred naturally over billions of years. The evidence does not disprove the existence of an Intelligent Designer it affirms it and gives clues on methodologies he might have employed in a vastly accelerated manner that none of us can ever hope to duplicate.

My own personal view is that macro -evolutionary theory is actually a reaction to a certain form of super spiritual Christianity that had so far removed itself from nature and the animal kingdom that it had become falsely ascetic. Evolutions power came from pointing out the truth that we do have strong connections with nature and the animal world and that to a considerable extent we are made out of the same stuff as they are. The science does not actually have to set Evolutionists and Christians in opposition at all nor is it necessary just to blindly accept the scientists timescales as in the case of Theistic Evolutionists. As Christians begin to understand the value of nature (our responsibility to be stewards and not just to control it) and the value and beauty of the animal world this power of opposition loses its legitimacy and we find we are actually closer in our thinking than we previously thought. The study of DNA is one area in which Macro-Evolution can be quickly overthrown because it is really irrelevant and indeed distracting from the description , understanding and use of our understanding regarding the human genome for practical healing or life enhancing purposes. Also because it essentially reduces human beings dignity and status beneath what it actually is. Ontological reductionism is an insult to our maker as we are much more than what a scientist can observe about us.

I believe you believe this.

And-U-Say · Mar 20, 2013

mindlight said:
But it is equally possible that a Creator could have used a similar genetic base material as an early phase of a rapid creation process and with a technique of accelerated DNA replication and controlled mutation produced each species that we see today according to their type. The bible suggests animals and birds and fish were created first and then man on the 6th day. It is perfectly possible that in continuity with the principles already established in his earlier creations and with the environment in which he had created biological life God then produced a man that was both genetically more advanced (yet in continuity) with his earlier designs. Add to that the breath of God and the transcendence of having being made in the very image of God that distingushes man and you have alternate explanation as to how man arose.

No! How many times do we have to tell you? You are claiming here that your infinite creator is severely limited in the creation process. That he does not have the design resources to create optimal designs for each type of creature. Because he is resource constrained, he re-used designs as he went along. This is sub-optimal, but necessary when resources are limited.

This results in a nested hierarchy and sub-optimal design in virtually every case. Not only that, but the bible's sequence of events does not follow this hierarchy.

And a nested hierarchy is utterly unnecessary to interact with the environment. A cat can have six legs and a dog can have four legs, but the Biochemistry of digestion is the only thing that needs to be common for successful interaction with the environment. So the body plan does not need to be re-used. But since body plans (and much more!) are "re-used", we can see that the evidence unequivocally points to evolution and away from a creator.

Loudmouth · Mar 20, 2013

And-U-Say said:
And a nested hierarchy is utterly unnecessary to interact with the environment.

That is a good point to stress. Both a fish and a human have the same inverted retina even though they live in entirely different environments. A fish and a squid, who share the very same environment, have very different eyes with a squid having a forward facing retina and a fish having an inverted retina. It makes no sense from that perspective.

AgnosticShtick · Mar 22, 2013

mindlight said:
But it is equally possible that a Creator could have used a similar genetic base material as an early phase of a rapid creation process and with a technique of accelerated DNA replication and controlled mutation produced each species that we see today according to their type. The bible suggests animals and birds and fish were created first and then man on the 6th day. It is perfectly possible that in continuity with the principles already established in his earlier creations and with the environment in which he had created biological life God then produced a man that was both genetically more advanced (yet in continuity) with his earlier designs. Add to that the breath of God and the transcendence of having being made in the very image of God that distingushes man and you have alternate explanation as to how man arose.

In Nature DNA replication with mutation is problematic and while it can be associated with environmental adaptation , more often it is associated with regression and sickness. The difference between a Creator and Nature is that God never makes mistakes and works much faster.

This sounds like my church growing up.

But why would a creator choose to design atavisms (spelling?) in his creatures? Why give whales and dolphins the genes for hind legs that we can see in some cases? (My pastor used to say that they only looked like legs but weren't. But they have all of the structures of legs when they do dissections. They are legs through and through.)

And why would a designer put ERVS into living things at the same positions and in ways to show tree-like development histories?

My church always said that animals having the same ancestors and animals have the same designer would look exactly the same. But that is false. Why doesn't we see mixing of features like we do in car models? In animals a feature may only occur in that family of animals. Why doesn't the designer choose to use that feature randomly in many different families?

I don't think creationists understand that evolution is based on seeing tree-like relationships, not just similarities in living things.

Things can look alike when one is unaware of how to look for differences. Very young children may say "Sheep!" when they see a dog with bushy fur. But an older children hears the dog bark and sees the dog wagging its tail and playing and knows it isn't a sheep. So the older kid is not fooled by a few similarities.

mindlight · Mar 23, 2013

AgnosticShtick said:
This sounds like my church growing up.

But why would a creator choose to design atavisms (spelling?) in his creatures? Why give whales and dolphins the genes for hind legs that we can see in some cases? (My pastor used to say that they only looked like legs but weren't. But they have all of the structures of legs when they do dissections. They are legs through and through.)

And why would a designer put ERVS into living things at the same positions and in ways to show tree-like development histories?

My church always said that animals having the same ancestors and animals have the same designer would look exactly the same. But that is false. Why doesn't we see mixing of features like we do in car models? In animals a feature may only occur in that family of animals. Why doesn't the designer choose to use that feature randomly in many different families?

I don't think creationists understand that evolution is based on seeing tree-like relationships, not just similarities in living things.

Things can look alike when one is unaware of how to look for differences. Very young children may say "Sheep!" when they see a dog with bushy fur. But an older children hears the dog bark and sees the dog wagging its tail and playing and knows it isn't a sheep. So the older kid is not fooled by a few similarities.

Creationists tend not to believe in vestigial organs which assumes an evolutionary explanation. Nor are there any useless functions in a creatures design. For example in the example you gave of a whale there is a reproductive purpose to the organ believed to be a leftover leg

Vestigial Structures - Answers in Genesis

mindlight · Mar 23, 2013

And-U-Say said:
No! How many times do we have to tell you? You are claiming here that your infinite creator is severely limited in the creation process. That he does not have the design resources to create optimal designs for each type of creature. Because he is resource constrained, he re-used designs as he went along. This is sub-optimal, but necessary when resources are limited.

This results in a nested hierarchy and sub-optimal design in virtually every case. Not only that, but the bible's sequence of events does not follow this hierarchy.

And a nested hierarchy is utterly unnecessary to interact with the environment. A cat can have six legs and a dog can have four legs, but the Biochemistry of digestion is the only thing that needs to be common for successful interaction with the environment. So the body plan does not need to be re-used. But since body plans (and much more!) are "re-used", we can see that the evidence unequivocally points to evolution and away from a creator.

When you say things like suboptimal with reference to the Creators design that makes me think you are missing something real important, There is a reason for everything even if people do not yet know what it is.

mindlight · Mar 23, 2013

FrenchyBearpaw said:
I believe you believe this.

Great that you affirm my sincerity but disappointing that you do not actually interact with my viewpoint merely on the grounds that it includes an assumption e.g. of God that you have arbitarily decided is unscientific.

mindlight · Mar 23, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Yes, it is. A nested hierarchy looks like evolution. That is the only pattern of shared and derived features that evolution can produce. No designer is limited to such a pattern.

If you disagree, then please explain how evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy amongst species that do not participate in horizontal inheritance like most metazoans.

Why would this holistic manner produce a nested hierarchy?

You have it backwards. I observe evolution in action. I observe that evolution produces a nested hierarchy. I then create a hypothesis. If species share a common ancestor and changed through time as a result of these observed evolutionary mechanisms then I should see a nested hierarchy. If evolution did not occur then I should see numerous and clear violations of a nested hierarchy. This is a testable, scientific hypothesis. I then look to see if species, both extinct and extant, fall into a nested hierarchy. This is not an assumption. This is not me forcing a theory onto the facts. Rather, this is TESTING a theory with the facts, and that theory passes that test.

A supreme being could have also mixed and matched different design units so that they do not fall into a nested hierarchy just as humans do. No supreme being would be limited to a nested hierarchy, so there is no expectation that one would see a nested hierarchy if creationism is true. You would only expect this pattern if evolution were true.

Then how does it not match? What would the pattern of similarity be if evolution really were true?

Yes, just like you do for every theory in science that you accept such as the theory of atoms, the germ theory of disease, theory of relativity, etc. Every single theory that you currently accept was developed in the same way that evolution was. Why should evolution be any different?

Also, where have you shown that these supernatural mechanisms even exist? Where have you shown them in action? Where have you constructed experiments to test for them? All you have done so far is say that if creationism is true then it will look exactly like life evolved. That doesn't make any sense.

So why isn't there a creature of the air with feathers and mammary glands? Why isn't there a creature of the air with fur and flow through lungs? Why do you ONLY see the mixture of features that evolution predicts we should see? Why would a creator meticulously put features together in a way that exactly mimics evolution? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Why would a continuity of life require a nested hierarchy? You STILL haven't explained this.

You are shifting the burden of proof. In a court of law, I don't have to disprove leprechauns planting fingerprints at the scene of a crime in order to use fingerprints as evidence. So why would I have to disprove the magical poofing of animals into a pattern of shared characteristics consistent with completely natural processes?

The difference is I am using evidence. You are making it up.

You have never given us any evidence that any such expert did anything.

How does it affirm it?

Then you really don't understand the evidence found in the field of biology. Biology is inexplicable without evolution. You can't tie facts together in biology without evolution. It just isn't possible. Why does no animal have feathers and mammary glands? Why does yeast and humans have a different protein sequence for cytochrome C when the two genes are interchangeable between the two species? This is just a tiny piece of the tip of the iceberg. Creationism does not explain the facts of biology. Period.

All I see you doing is saying that you don't like the conclusions that science has reached, so we should just ignore them. That doesn't seem very productive.

If God designed an environment with certain conditions and features. Why does it surprise you that there is a continuity between his more primitive and advanced designs. We were created to live with each other and with the creatures of land, sea and air that God created according to their type. We breathe the same air and even have similar digestive needs. Indeed given the mandate to rule over the other creatures a degree of empathy with their natural processes of reproduction, feeding, waste disposal and sleeping seems very helpful in fact.

DNA replication with mutations is the essential process you describe that gives the similarities and descent patterns that you associate with "nested hierarchies". A Supreme Being with a total mastery of the life processes that He Himself designed would not be handicapped by the timescale considerations and false starts of a merely naturalistic and unguided process. Thus I can observe exactly the same evidence and yet accept 6 day creation in the last 10000 years without any contempt for the accuracy of your descriptions of what is actually empirically quantifiable.

FrenchyBearpaw · Mar 23, 2013

mindlight said:
Great that you affirm my sincerity but disappointing that you do not actually interact with my viewpoint merely on the grounds that it includes an assumption e.g. of God that you have arbitarily decided is unscientific.

Yes, you're operating under certain, a priori assumptions, which is not science in any sense of the word, so yes, it's difficult to have a discussion with a presuppositionalist.

Apes and humans have different designs

See in the dark

Titleless

See in the dark

See in the dark

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Titleless

See in the dark

Contributor

Take time for granite.

Veteran

Contributor

AgnosticShtick

Guest

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

Take time for granite.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency